Pentagon Video Closeups

The best way to compare what enters the camera between these two frames is to: save them both to your computer and flip between them rapidly to see
what pixels change.

After many, many hours of watching, analyzing, and zooming on this video; I do not see, how anyone could possibly - logically deduct that the
following animation is the least bit accurate.

Here's why:

1. The pixels to the left of #1 lighten up, the pixels below it darken. Why? There is some kind of object hidden behind the box, the pixels
darkening could possibly be from the object being brighter than the grass and making the grass below it appear darker than the previous scene. This
could be nothing, or this could be the nose of the airplane. NOTE: to the left of #1 the trees are clearly visible as in the scene before, though
acording to the animation above the fuselage should be visible.

2. The pixels directly above #2 remain dark green. They do NOT change to a silvery gray, or any shade of gray. NOTE: The tree line above #2, is also
in the previous frame - which means either: the person who made the animation used the treeline for part of the wing or the wing of the plane
perfectly fit to replace the treeline exactly.

3. This is only to point out the approximate location of where the nose would be if the above animation was correct. Watch this area when flipping
between the 2 scenes.

4. The vertical stabilizer in this image appears to be a right triangle (or close to it). The smoke is on the far side of the craft, otherwise the
view of the tail fuselage wouldn't be visible. The lettering on the stabilizer appears to be black (this could be from poor video quality).

How on earth could an engine hit 1 or even 2 light poles, and keep flying - especially if it hit hard enough to make the engine smoke so much? Why
would the right engine smoke and not the left?

My VERY APPROXIMATE guess at trajectory, and other things would put the left side/wing hitting 3 light poles and the right 2. And yes, please
forgive my hideously drawn 757, I'm anything but an artist (the length is close to being correct the width of the fuselage is probably WAY off - as I
couldn't find measurements for it)

I am always looking for high quality video of the Pentagon 757 - if you know of any that are of higher quality or where I can pay for a DVD of the
original, please contact me: raven7night@yahoo.com

I don't know if anyone ever mentioned this. But by looking at the shadows, and knowing that it is 700-800 feet away from the camera, wouldn't that
make it obvious that it was NOT a missile? What missle is large enough to cast a shadow that big?

It makes a good case for what a 757 might look like when you photograph it from 700-800 feet away through a fish-eye lens.

I concur with that, but there's still three things that are questionable to me.

1. Why didn't they find any big aircraft wreckage parts, such as the engines, the cockpit, tale sections, etc.? The maximum temperature of kerosene
is 1120 degrees Celsius. However, - according to the government officials - the entire aircraft had been vaporized by the kerosene of the aircraft.
How would this be possible, when titanium only melts on a minimum temperature of 1680 degrees Celsius, while the temperature of the kerosene was 1120
degrees Celsius max. In addition, how did they successfully identify the bodies of the victims, while the engines were vaporized? Since when is skin
tougher than titanium?

2 .According to the flight instructor, the flight 77 ''terrorist pilot'' was barely able to pilot a one engine aircraft. But let's assume he has
been able to pilot the aircraft towards the Pentagon, how has he been able to manoeuvre such a big airliner, without any experience on such a low
altitude (less than one meter off the ground?), without sliding on the lawn in front of the walls. Manoeuvring such a big aircraft just above the
ground is a really difficult and requires a lot of experience.

3. The camera issue, if the government has nothing to hide, then why don't they release the tapes of the gas station, the public traffic dept, and
the Sheraton Hotel?
It would be the perfect proof to convince all conspiracy theorists about the fact a plane hit the Pentagon rather than a cruise missile.

Which brings us automatically to the following question: was it really the terrorist the government wants us to believe, that piloted the 77
flight?

ad 1) I haven't seen the vaporisation claim. What I have seen are pictures of engine parts, undercarriage parts and ripped aluminium from the
Pentagon wreckage and Pentagon lawn. And to identify using DNA you don't need that much.

ad 2) In normal pilot training one of the most important points are two most critical things - takeoff and landing. Those guys knew they don't need
to take off the plane or to land it so what? Don't forget some of them have been training on the proffessional simulator. and piloting the 757 with
its hydraulic steering and computers might well be easier than piloting manually a Cessna ;o)

ad 3) Maybe the FBI isn't interested in bunch of guys on ATS, half of whom won't believe the tapes anyway? Maybe there's too much "release it"
shouting and in the same time no FOIA release demand?

When you look at the pictures, you see the roof line of the pentagon has a large gap in it prior to the jet hitting it. Has anyone given an
explanation of this? Or can anyone explain this? It looks as though the roofline has already collapsed.

It makes a good case for what a 757 might look like when you photograph it from 700-800 feet away through a fish-eye lens.

I'd say that pretty much does it for me on this subject. I work with the modeling software used to create that video every day. I know the accuracy
that it is capable of.

Yeah, looks like a nice peace of software to me. But when used the wrong way it leads to wrong conclusion.

Contrary to what they have hoped the video proves pritty strong that there is no 757!

You can check self in the video where they switch from the real picture to the model (2:30) that they made a mismatch in the plane position. (also
note how the shape of the tail changes..has nothing of a 757) www.youtube.com...

I only corrected the plane position and corrected the end of the yellow box which is incorrect modelled compared with the original video stills. And
you see that it sticks out far enough that you had to see it in the difference pic. (created new once from the original unmodefied videos) Yet there
is nothing.
Also note that the correction of the position if we do it even more correct also would mean a little incresement of the plane size because it is
closer to the camera.

It looks to me that they tried every trick to match that thing behind the box.

At the end it is a joke anyway because they forgoet camera2, which shows no plane at all.

byway the fisheye they used looks also not to be that correct matched with the real thing. Check the horizont.

Why do you leave out the massive amount of heat generated by kinnetic energy released by a stop of about 30G forces?Not to mention the pic of the
generator,that was clipped.Notice your ever wanted "cookie cut out" engine on the left,even furhter left corner of remaining fence.Oh' yea the
generator was tweeeeaked.Not to mention all the light poles.Ggeeezzee.do you guys look at any evidence,or check one fact.
Good Day.
D.

is a site that asks all the right questions and provides the most useful information without the bullcrap on 9/11, and I followed this link from
another ATS member, it is comprehensive and thought provoking and well researched, James Feltzer has also recommended this site, I would recommend
that everyone at least browses it, and I have no affiliation with the site whatsoever, I am just looking for the truth like everyone else.
Im sure it's been mentioned before so apologies if it has.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.